The effort to force reforms of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department by not funding the Department of Homeland Security is an example of using disruptive tactics to create pressure for change.
In this case, disrupting the lives of air travelers trying to get through security checks is the “stick” supporters hope will force changes. But there are always risks when using such strategies.
The tactic is not new. Strikes, road blockages, legislative brinkmanship, coordinated “sick-outs” impose costs on the public to force attention, reframe urgency, or shift bargaining leverage.
Whether they “work” or not depends less on the mechanics of disruption itself and more on public reaction. If opponents can successfully reframe the protesters as selfish or extreme, or if the “broad middle” of the public becomes alienated (even if they might agree with the goals).
Perhaps the classic examples are labor strikes shutting down production lines. The pain is the point.
But not all disruption arguably is equally viewed as “legitimate:”
Labor union strikes tend to have high legitimacy and are often effective
Road blockages that cause public disruption carry a high backlash risk
Legislative disruption (shutdowns, refusal to fund) are high stakes, polarizing and can damage institutional trust.
The calculation of legislative disruption effectiveness always turns, to some degree, on “who gets blamed” for the inconvenience. Government shutdowns provide a prime example. Who gets blamed: the governing party or the obstructionists?
The attempt in 2026 to force ICE reforms by causing airport security screening delays has so far resulted in:
Severe service disruption (airport delays, staff quitting) (Reuters)
Worker hardship and absenteeism spike (People.com)
Political stalemate persists despite disruption (The Guardian)
Tactical “workarounds” (e.g., redeploying staff) fail to resolve underlying conflict (The Washington Post)
At least so far, disruption has created pressure in the form of public inconvenience. But the research suggests the risk.
Short-term: disruption works, but mostly on attention, not outcomes:
Awareness jumps dramatically (often >80%)
Media coverage spikes
Negotiations may accelerate
Public concern rises quickly
Blame is diffuse or unstable
No consistent evidence of clear “winners”
Attention is gained, but often not control.
Short-term backlash will be immediate and measurable:
Large majorities view shutdowns as harmful (often ~75–90%)
Communities feel impacts within days
Concern intensifies over time.
When does winning become losing?
Long term, such disruptions are a negative:
Trust in government declines (e.g., ~17% approval post-shutdown) (Gallup.com)
Both parties tend to lose standing
Polarization increases rather than resolves
Durable support is questionable, as is the longer-lasting political or institutional damage.
Government shutdowns and similar legislative disruptions force attention and urgency, but are unreliable at producing favorable outcomes in the short term.
The long-term effects are largely negative, eroding trust in institutions and leaders, increasing future brinkmanship as a negotiating tool and possibly damaging both sides to the disputes.
Legislative disruption is a blunt instrument (raises pressure, but spreads political damage widely and unpredictably). It keeps getting used but rarely produces clean victories.
Some of us might argue that the stakes grow when the pain is caused either by government workers or the government itself.
It might be one thing for private employees to bargain with private employers using any available means (strikes, boycotts, picketing). In principle, government employees work for the citizenry at large, as their wages and benefits are paid by taxpayers (business and personal payers).
Legislative disruptions might be intended to create political pressure. They do so, but only by causing inconvenience for citizens supposedly served by their government. And there lies the danger.
